User:KBfade24/Oncorhynchus kawamurae/Zblue2 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

KBfade24, Westcoastgal11, Wsvcis


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:KBfade24/Oncorhynchus kawamurae
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Oncorhynchus kawamurae

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead Section
I think the lead section does a nice job of laying out the key information on this species. I like that it starts off with the information about the presumed extinction and rediscovery, because it acts as an interesting "hook" for the topic. You could perhaps merge the second and third paragraphs, as they are each only 1 sentence.

Content
The content is all directly related to the topic, and covers a variety of information. I especially like how detailed the history section is. Good work! It is also fairly up-to-date. You may have already done this, but because you said there was not much known about the species at the time of their rediscovery (e.g., about their behaviour and ecology), I would suggest targeting a search for some very recent resources to see if any more information has been discovered since 2014 (the date of your most recent resource). It would be great if you could find information to expand on those lesser known subtopics, but if not, the way you have referenced the lack of research is helpful for explaining that gap. It would also be interesting to know if there are any social factors to this topic; e.g., is the fish a source of food?

Tone & Balance
You have done a good job of keeping any bias or assumptions out of this article – the information all appears to be fact-based and neutral.

Sources & References
There is a good number of cited sources, most of which are from reputable, peer-reviewed journals.The news articles used are from reputable sources as well. Most of the pieces of information are sourced, with just a few exceptions (the first couple sentences in the second-to-last paragraph, for example) – I know this is a first draft, so just a reminder to be thorough with your citing for the final draft! It's great that you found a variety of sources to use. As you add more content, be conscious about trying to balance the sources that you pull information from. Currently it is pretty well balanced, but it did stand out to me that source #1 was used quite frequently. Finally, in the reference list, ""Extinct" Salmon Discovered in Japanese Lake" is cited twice (#2 and #4), and differently; I believe the first version looks more correct.

Organization
The sections included are thoughtfully done and the order of them is reasonable and has a nice flow. This is minor, but within "morphology and life cycle", I suggest putting the paragraph about their mature/pre-spawning morphology before the paragraph about their spawning morphology, as that would better represent the order of their life cycle. I personally would also like to see a distinct section for "habitat". You've done a good job of already including information on their habitat, but I think it would be nice to have a separate section for it, as that is a key piece of information people seek when looking up a species.

Overall I think the writing is well done! It is concise while remaining clear and informative. There are some minor grammar errors that can easily be remedied for the final draft; e.g., first paragraph of "History", second sentence, "though" should be "thought". The phrase "tends to" is used quite frequently – I think that it often isn't necessary and could be omitted in many cases, or changed to a different phrase to limit repetition. In general, I think the use of it somewhat weakens the phrases it is attached to, making the information seem less certain/factual.

Images & Media
It's definitely understandable that you haven't yet added images, but it would really uplift the final draft! Make sure to include captions and ensure they follow copyright regulations. Showing an image of a live mature fish would be great, as that is missing from the current, published Wikipedia page.

Overall Impressions
Overall your article covers a wide range of information on the topic that provides the reader with a general understanding. You have definitely expanded on and improved the original article! The order and flow of sections is good. I think it can further be improved upon by adding more section headers (e.g., a section on habitat), as well as images. Otherwise, most of my comments are easy fixes that could be addressed with a thorough read-through and edit.